This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Lessons learned, challenges and recommendations
UN-REDD PROGRAMME August 2012
FPIC for REDD+ in the Asia-Pacific region: Lessons learned, challenges and recommendations
Contents ...................................................................................................................................... 2 Executive summary ...................................................................................................................... 4 Acknowledgments ....................................................................................................................... 5 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 6 1 2 Status of FPIC activities in UN-REDD Programme countries in Asia-Pacific region.................. 10 Case studies of FPIC pilots ................................................................................................... 12 2.1 Central Sulawesi, Indonesia ...................................................................................................... 12 2.2 Lam Dong Province, Viet Nam .................................................................................................. 18 3 Developing national (or sub-national) FPIC guidelines: Lessons learned ............................... 22 3.1 Partner countries need more assistance to develop FPIC guidelines ....................................... 22 3.2 When preparing national FPIC guidelines, first review existing consultation processes ......... 23 3.3 Countries appear keen to formalize national-level FPIC guidelines ......................................... 25 4 Implementing FPIC: Lessons learned ................................................................................... 25 4.1 Using a range of approaches can help communicate REDD+ to low literacy communities ..... 25 4.2 Selecting and training suitable facilitators is of critical importance ......................................... 27 4.3 It is important to document the whole FPIC process ............................................................... 29 4.4 Establishing effective grievance mechanisms is important ...................................................... 29 5 Opportunities and challenges............................................................................................ 311 5.1 Improving FPIC processes throughout the broader policy framework..................................... 31 5.2 How to roll out FPIC for REDD+ programmes and policies? ..................................................... 31 5.3 How much does FPIC cost, and who will pay for it? ................................................................. 33 6 Recommendations.............................................................................................................. 33 6.1 Develop an ‘FPIC toolbox’ ......................................................................................................... 34 6.2 Targeted assistance for countries to develop FPIC processes .................................................. 35
Page | 2
FPIC for REDD+ in the Asia-Pacific region: Lessons learned, challenges and recommendations 6.3 Developing the business case for FPIC in REDD+ ...................................................................... 36 Useful FPIC resources ................................................................................................................. 38 Other references ........................................................................................................................ 39
Page | 3
Of these countries. held in Bogor. and the need for effective grievance mechanisms. The Report draws significantly on the proceedings of the Second UN-REDD Programme Regional Workshop on FPIC Shared Learning. from 19 – 20 April 2012. based on the emerging experiences of the UN-REDD Programme partner countries in the Asia-Pacific region. such as how to explain REDD+ to low literacy communities. Section 4 contains some of the lessons emerging from early attempts to operationalize FPIC in REDD+. drawn from 14 partner countries across the AsiaPacific region and 2 partner countries from the Latin America and Caribbean region. The Report concludes (section 6) with three recommendations for future action on FPIC by the UNREDD Programme. Indonesia. Section 1 of the Report contains an overview of the status of FPIC activities in the UN-REDD Programme countries in the Asia-Pacific region. Section 2 provides a description of some of the lessons learned from these two pilots. and not only for projects. This workshop. namely: To develop an FPIC toolbox To make targeted assistance available to help countries develop their FPIC processes To develop the business case for FPIC. Page | 4 . the importance of documenting the whole FPIC process. The main purpose of this Report is to share some recent lessons learned on FPIC for REDD+. programmes and planning-approaches. such as the need for countries to develop FPIC processes for policies. It also contains some observations from discussions during the FPIC Workshop in Bogor. it is timely for countries to share their experiences with one another in order to facilitate learning on FPIC. Given that many countries are still at a very early stage of understanding what FPIC is and how it can be integrated into their national REDD+ strategies. challenges and recommendations Executive summary The interpretation and application of the right to Free. Some future opportunities and challenges for REDD+ are identified in section 5. was attended by nearly 80 participants. two have direct experience with piloting FPIC processes: Indonesia (in Central Sulawesi province) and Viet Nam (in Lam Dong province). Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) is still evolving and continues to present both opportunities and challenges for those developing countries who are preparing to engage with REDD+. and provides a suggested process for countries to follow. Section 3 identifies some observations concerning these early attempts of countries to develop national or sub-national FPIC guidelines.FPIC for REDD+ in the Asia-Pacific region: Lessons learned.
Philippines.FPIC for REDD+ in the Asia-Pacific region: Lessons learned. AsiaPacific. Stakeholder Engagement. Programme Manager. UN-REDD Programme. UN-REDD Programme. UN-REDD Programme. Indonesia. Policy Analyst. UN-REDD Programme. UN-REDD Viet Nam Programme.sriskanthan@undp. Philippines. Regional Technical Advisor.org). UN-REDD Indonesia Programme. and Mr Ben Vickers. Ms Jennifer Laughlin. Indonesia. RECOFTC Viet Nam Country Program Coordinator. UN-REDD Programme. UNDP. UNDP & UN-REDD Programme. Non-timber Forest Products Exchange Programme. Team Leader. or to Ms Gaya Sriskanthan. Communication & Network Officer. Mr Agus Hernandi. Ancestral Domains Office. UN-REDD Programme. Ms Robeliza Halip. Consultant. Viet Nam. Regional Coordinator. The author wishes to thank the following people for providing country information on FPIC in REDD+ and for their comments on earlier drafts of this Report: Atty. Bangkok. Researcher. FAO. Any comments or observations on the Report may be directed to lisa@lisaogle. Stakeholder Engagement. (gayathri. challenges and recommendations Acknowledgments This Report was commissioned by the UN-REDD Programme and was written by Ms Lisa Ogle (Environmental Legal Consultant). Page | 5 . The author also wishes to thank three people in particular for generously sharing their ideas and experience on FPIC and REDD+: Dr Tim Boyle. and Ms Gaya Sriskanthan. Ms. Mr Nguyen Quang Tan. Asia-Pacific Regional Centre (Bangkok). Munandar. National Commission on Indigenous Peoples. Mr Akihito Kono. Nanda F. UN-REDD Regional Coordinator (Bangkok). Director. UNDP Regional Centre. Consultant. Mrs Nguyen Thi Thu Huyen. Viet Nam. Dr Thomas Enters. UN-REDD Regional Advisor. Jonathan Adaci. Ms Keiko Nomura. Programme Officer. Ms Hoang Vu Lan Phuong. UNEP.net.
4 Cancun Agreements decision on REDD+ Page | 6 . the American Convention on Human Rights and the American Declaration on the Rights and Duties of Man. the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). and as arising from the State duties and obligations with respect to other rights as affirmed by the decisions of the human rights bodies authorized to interpret these instruments3. particularly in the case of Indigenous Peoples.2 The specific mandate and obligation for States. for the UN-REDD Programme. obtained prior to implementation of activities and be founded upon an understanding of the full range of issues implicated by the activity or decision in question. prior and informed consent. Further. FPIC applies to proposed actions (decisions. Prior and Informed Consent. and promote the right to FPIC. territories. In Search of Middle Ground: Indigenous Peoples. 8-14. potentially impacted peoples have the right to participate in and consent to or withhold consent from a proposed action. and the United Nations Development Group (UNDG) Guidelines on Indigenous Peoples Issues.) that have the potential to impact the lands. the African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights (Banjul Charter). 169). and MacKay. hence the formulation: free. M. pp. well-being. the application of FPIC is a means to meet the Cancun Agreements requirement of countries to promote and support 1 Colchester. and resources upon which Indigenous Peoples depend for their cultural. Collective Representation and the Right to Free. the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). F. the International Covenant on Economic.1 This right of FPIC applies to REDD+ discussions regarding potential changes in resource uses that could impact the livelihoods of Indigenous and other Forest Dependent Communities. is affirmed in numerous international and regional instruments-. Consent must be freely given. Forest Peoples Programme. etc. Prior and Informed Consent is the collective right to participate in decision making and to give or withhold their consent to activities affecting lands. and survival. the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD). In the context of REDD+. (2010) FPIC and UN-REDD: Legal and Practical Considerations. activities.both expressly in the texts. (2004). projects.FPIC for REDD+ in the Asia-Pacific region: Lessons learned. spiritual and physical sustenance. Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR). protect. for example: the Convention concerning Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries (ILO No. the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Under these circumstances. 3 Including. challenges and recommendations Introduction Free. the UN and its programmes to respect. territories and resources or rights in general. consistent with international human rights instruments and other treaty obligations. the right to FPIC is addressed indirectly because the text of the safeguards “note*s+” that the General Assembly has adopted UNDRIP (which itself set out the right to FPIC). 2 Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL). although the term ‘FPIC’ is not expressly referred to in either the body of the decision on REDD+ in the Cancun Agreements or in its Appendix containing the safeguards4.
6 The draft Guidelines are available here in English. Following a series of extensive consultations with Indigenous Peoples and Forest Dependent Communities5. and Tanzania (January 2011) (For more information. As more UN-REDD Programme partner countries develop their national approaches to REDD+. 2(a). Indonesia and Viet Nam). 7 Click here for all documents related to this Workshop. The Guidelines are currently being revised to address recommendations arising from comments received during the public consultation period (1 December 2011 – 20 January 2012) and the Expert Workshop on the UN-REDD FPIC Guidelines in Geneva (10-11 February 2012)7.g. policy and operational framework for UN-REDD Programme partner countries to seek FPIC. challenges and recommendations “respect for the knowledge and rights of indigenous peoples and members of local communities” and to ensure “the full and effective participation of relevant stakeholders. Page | 7 .FPIC for REDD+ in the Asia-Pacific region: Lessons learned. including the Final Report. Africa workshop report). the UN-REDD Programme has prioritized stakeholder engagement and the right to FPIC as a key component of stakeholder engagement. and Appendix I. Recognizing the critical role of Indigenous Peoples and Forest Dependent Communities to the longterm sustainability and effectiveness of REDD+. It also seeks to identify some of the opportunities and challenges for FPIC on the horizon. inter alia. from its inception. 69 and 72. This Report draws significantly on the proceedings of the Second UN-REDD Programme Regional Workshop on FPIC Shared Learning. see: Asia. drawn from 14 partner countries across the Asia Pacific region and 2 partner countries from the 5 The UN-REDD FPIC Guidelines are based on recommendations received during three regional consultations on FPIC and grievance mechanisms. paras. French and Spanish. and makes some brief recommendations for further action by the UN-REDD Programme on FPIC.Pacific workshop report. The purpose of this Report is to share the recent lessons learned on FPIC and REDD+ in the Asia Pacific region based on these emerging experiences. paras. The revised Guidelines are expected to be shared publicly in September 2012. Panama (October 2010). and respond to feedback received from the UN Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (February 2011). while demand is increasing from others who are seeking more knowledge and guidance in relation to FPIC. a few are gaining direct experience with piloting FPIC in REDD+ (e. indigenous peoples and local communities” (Cancun Agreements. held in Bogor. Prior and Informed Consent6. Latin America and the Caribbean workshop report. (c) and (d)). from 19 – 20 April 2012 (hereafter referred to as the ‘FPIC Workshop in Bogor’). Indonesia. the UN-REDD Programme has developed draft Guidelines on Free. held in Viet Nam (June 2010). which outline the normative. This workshop was attended by nearly 80 participants.
Rather. the Report also draws on personal interviews with participants attending the conference. as well as a review of the Readiness Preparation Proposals (R-PPs) and National Programme Documents from each of the countries. Papua New Guinea. This Report does not seek to revisit the material which is covered in the UN-REDD FPIC Guidelines or other publications9. 8 Participants attended the FPIC workshop from Bangladesh. the Philippines. P. and Viet Nam. The FPIC Workshop agenda. Page | 8 . Anderson. Mongolia. Free. as well as Ecuador and Paraguay. The views expressed in this Report are those of the author and do not represent the views of the UN-REDD Programme or its partner countries. Solomon Islands. Bhutan. including both government representatives and representatives from indigenous peoples’ and civil society organizations. Pakistan. Cambodia. presentations and evaluation report can be accessed here. Laos. published by RECOFTC and GIZ. the Report seeks to build on existing FPIC material by analysing some of the emerging issues and identifying some of the challenges arising from early attempts to operationalize FPIC in the context of REDD+. challenges and recommendations Latin America and Caribbean region.8 In addition to the workshop proceedings. Prior and Informed Consent in REDD+: Principles and Approaches for Policy and Project Development. Indonesia. (2011).FPIC for REDD+ in the Asia-Pacific region: Lessons learned.. Nepal. Malaysia (not a UN-REDD Programme partner country). 9 For example. Myanmar. Sri Lanka.
UN-REDD Vietnam Programme. Indonesia Participants at the Second Regional UN-REDD Workshop on FPIC Shared Learning. Bogor. being interviewed during FPIC Workshop in Bogor Welcome ceremony: Traditional rampak gendang dance from Indonesia (left to right): Mr Chou Beang Ly.FPIC for REDD+ in the Asia-Pacific region: Lessons learned. Mr Thaung Naing Oo (Myanmar) and Mr Cedric Tumba (PNG) Page | 9 . Mr Sokun Narong Sopha. and Mr Monyrak Meng (all from Cambodia) (left to right): Ms Javin Tan (Malaysia). Indonesia. 19 – 20 April 2012 Mrs Nguyen Thi Thu Huyen. challenges and recommendations Photos from the Second Regional UN-REDD Workshop on FPIC held in Bogor.
3. Papua New 2 PNG has prepared draft national FPIC Guidelines (FPIC Manual.10 In December 2011.FPIC for REDD+ in the Asia-Pacific region: Lessons learned. Table 1 provides an overview of the current status of FPIC experience in each partner country. challenges and recommendations 1 Status of FPIC activities in UN-REDD Programme countries in Asia-Pacific region Each of the UN-REDD partner countries in the Asia-Pacific region are at different stages in the development of their FPIC processes for REDD+. The draft guidelines have been subject to stakeholder Indonesia 1 10 See the Dewan Kehutanan Nasional publication. Indonesia does not have any national FPIC guidelines. including some activities which are not taking place directly under the UN-REDD Programme. 2011) which are project-based. Prior Informed Consent (FPIC) Instrument for Indigenous Community and or Local Community who will be Affected by REDD+ Activities. Policy Recommendation: Free. namely Lembah Mukti and Talaga Village (see the description of this in section 3. has prepared a set of recommendations for establishing national FPIC guidelines. There are no national or sub-national level FPIC guidelines. a second round of field testing of the draft FPIC Guidelines will be carried out in two villages near the Lore Lindu National Park in Central Sulawesi. 2. an industry body. 4. However. Page | 10 . Has developed FPIC guidelines and/or has carried out some pilot FPIC activities Has developed national or sub-national FPIC Guidelines Is carrying out preparatory activities for FPIC Has identified specific FPIC activities in its National Programme Document or R-PP Has yet to initiate any FPIC activities Table 1: Status of FPIC activities in UN-REDD partner countries in the Asia Pacific region Country FPIC status FPIC activities Countries receiving support through UN-REDD National Programmes Cambodia 3 Cambodia’s main experience with FPIC and REDD+ to date is through the community consultation process undertaken for the Seima REDD+ Demonstration Project. which is supported by the Wildlife Conservation Society. the pilot province for demonstration activities under the UN-REDD Programme. These were submitted to the National REDD+ Taskforce and the Ministry of Forestry in March 2011. the draft FPIC guidelines were field tested in two villages in Central Sulawesi. in conjunction with the UN-REDD Programme. In July 2012. 5. Key: 1. following which the draft FPIC Guidelines will be revised. sub-national draft FPIC guidelines (“Panduan”) were prepared by a Working Group for Central Sulawesi. the National Forestry Council (DKN). In March 2012.1).
with one review by an NGO specifically considering whether the past and current Guidelines are sufficient to protect the right of indigenous peoples in the context of REDD+ (see section 4. Viet Nam has the most experience in conducting FPIC for REDD+ among the UN-REDD partner countries in the Asia-Pacific region. Solomon Islands 3 The Solomon Islands Initial National Programme Document requires an FPIC process to be established (Output 2. with consultations covering 78 villages in Lam Dong province (see the case study in section 3. It is expected that these guidelines will be field-tested in a pilot project once they have been endorsed by the National Climate Change Committee. it is now considering how to roll out FPIC on a national level. Philippines 1 The Philippines already has extensive experience with the FPIC principle because the right to FPIC is established under the Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Act of 1997. The detailed process for how FPIC must be done is set out by Administrative Orders issued by the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples of which the latest is the Administrative Order No 3 of 2012. and the establishment of a Grievance Mechanism. supported by the NGO. Other UN-REDD Partner Countries Sri Lanka 4 Viet Nam 111 Bangladesh 4 Bangladesh prepared a draft National REDD+ Roadmap in March 2012 which includes a proposal to develop FPIC guidelines designed around traditional decision-making systems. to train extension workers as FPIC intermediaries. This activity has not yet commenced.FPIC for REDD+ in the Asia-Pacific region: Lessons learned. and to date (June 2012). challenges and recommendations FPIC status Country Guinea FPIC activities consultation and remain open for comment (June 2012).2 below). Live and Learn Environmental Education. An FPIC manual is currently being prepared for a REDD+ pilot project in Choiseul province. this activity was undertaken without FPIC guidelines. and to assess options for establishing an independent grievance mechanism 11 Although Viet Nam has carried out FPIC pilot activities (in Lam Dong province).2). Viet Nam has not yet prepared national level FPIC guidelines. As Viet Nam moves into Phase 2 of REDD+. training on FPIC. Viet Nam is yet to develop any FPIC guidelines. there were three reviews conducted simultaneously that looked into the past practices concerning the implementation of the 2006 FPIC Guidelines. which replaced the FPIC Guidelines of 2006. In 2010 it became the first country to pilot FPIC activities at the district level. Page | 11 . pilot-testing of the guidelines. The recent 2012 FPIC guidelines apply to REDD+ activities. These activities have not yet commenced.2). Sri Lanka’s R-PP (March 2012) proposes a detailed range of FPIC activities for the period 2012 – 2014 which include the development of national FPIC guidelines. known as the “Revised Guidelines on FPIC and Related Procedures”. In 2011.
(2010). Ministry of Agriculture and Forests. Pakistan became a UN-REDD partner country in June 2011. Nepal’s R-PP (2010 – 2013). It has forest cover of 4. a scoping study12 was prepared on the feasibility of REDD+ in Bhutan and it is still considering whether to prepare a nation REDD+ Roadmap. the average deforestation rate in Central Sulawesi was 118. Bhutan 5 REDD+ is still very new in Bhutan. It has not yet prepared a National REDD+ Roadmap. Myanmar became a UN-REDD partner country in November 2011. Nepal is the only country in Asia to have ratified ILO 169. The Roadmap includes an activity to prepare and pilot a national FPIC guideline. There are presently two voluntary REDD+ projects proposed in two provinces (KPK province. Mongolia has prepared a draft National REDD+ Roadmap (June 2012). When designing its FPIC process. 12 Van Noord. about 65% of its total land area. When designing its approach to FPIC. Mongolia 4 Myanmar Nepal 5 5 Pakistan 5 2 Case studies of FPIC pilots Within the group of UN-REDD partner countries in the Asia-Pacific region. states that it will respect the rights of local communities and indigenous peoples to FPIC.6 million people (Map 1). Nepal became a UN-REDD partner country in October 2009. two countries have direct experience with piloting FPIC for REDD+ activities under the UN-REDD Programme: Central Sulawesi province in Indonesia. Department of Forests and Parks Services. This activity has not yet commenced. In 2008. published by SNV. Page | 12 .000 hectares.FPIC for REDD+ in the Asia-Pacific region: Lessons learned. and Lam Dong province in Viet Nam.394. It does not yet have a national REDD+ Roadmap or any experience with FPIC. Feasibility of REDD+ in Bhutan: A scoping study. Watershed Management Division.033 km² and a population of more than 2. Nepal can draw on its considerable experience with community forest management and its existing Community Forestry Guidelines. challenges and recommendations FPIC status Country FPIC activities for forestry and environmental issues. Indonesia Central Sulawesi is a province in Indonesia with a land area of 68. In 2010.744 hectares per year. Bhutan may be able to draw on its experience with community forestry and the consultation processes set out in its Forest and Nature Conservation Act 1995. H. 2.1 Central Sulawesi. but does not propose any specific FPIC activities. and Azad-Kashmir). prepared for the Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF).
14 The UN-REDD Indonesia Programme has identified two direct drivers of deforestation in the Province. These are: Donggala.FPIC for REDD+ in the Asia-Pacific region: Lessons learned. mining and cocoa production). Page | 13 . Tojo Una Una. Tolitoli. 14 In May 2012. Sigi. and Illegal logging and forest fires. the Provincial Governor of Central Sulawesi endorsed five of the 10 districts in Central Sulawesi for REDD+ demonstration activities. UN-REDD Indonesia Programme. 13 REDD+ activities will be carried out in 5 of the 10 districts within the Province. and Parigi Moutong. challenges and recommendations Central Sulawesi has been selected as the pilot province for demonstration activities under the UNREDD Indonesia Programme. Central Sulawesi’s Readiness to Implement REDD+ after 2012. 13 See the report. namely: planned and unplanned forest conversion (plantations.
which was a forest rehabilitation proposal by the Forest Management Unit. the draft FPIC guidelines were trialled in two villages (see Map 2): Lembah Mukti village (which includes 5 sub-villages). FPIC trial. Description of FPIC process The FPIC trial used the following process: Communication materials were prepared. The facilitators then returned two weeks later to Lembah Mukti to hold workshops on the proposed forest rehabilitation (replanting) program. March 2012. a Provincial REDD+ Working Group (Pokja) produced a set of draft FPIC Guidelines for Central Sulawesi (Panduan). Talaga village – see the explanation below in the pink column. Page | 14 . A total of twenty facilitators were recruited from the two villages (5 from each village) and also from other nearby villages. Central Sulawesi. brochures and calendars. During March 2012. Indonesia. These included banners. tested for effectiveness. The facilitators were trained on climate change. An initial visit was made to each village to explain the REDD+ proposal. REDD+. and revised. They did not return to the other village. and the FPIC process (negotiation and facilitation skills).FPIC for REDD+ in the Asia-Pacific region: Lessons learned. challenges and recommendations In December 2011. Lembah Mukti Village. posters. Participant reports back to Working Group on proposed consent conditions. and Talaga village.
Page | 15 . The NGO. Result: A Letter of Agreement was signed by the and chilli and were concerned that REDD+ would stop them from entering the forest area.g. namely rubber (karet) and/or jabon in return for the village carrying out forest conservation activities. Pokja Pantau. assistance to resolve boundary disputes. Pokja Pantau. had previously been to the village and told villagers that:”REDD+ will take the forest by force and will destroy the socio-cultural values of the community”. subsequently requested further consultation with the Forest Management Unit and the UN-REDD Programme.FPIC for REDD+ in the Asia-Pacific region: Lessons learned. implement the forest rehabilitation programme proposed by the Forest Management Unit (FMU). negotiators representing the village and the FMU. What was the outcome of the consultations? The village consultations resulted in two very different outcomes: Lembah Mukti village Talaga village The villagers of Lembah Mukti agreed to This village did not wish to consult on REDD+. nutmeg and durian seedlings: see Summary About 50% of the villagers grow cocoa. Summary of agreement between Lembah Mukti village and the Forest Management Unit As a result of the negotiations. with a number of changes (e. the original proposal by the Forest Management Units for forest rehabilitation changed significantly to incorporate the villagers’ requests. challenges and recommendations What did the proposed forest rehabilitation program involve? The FPIC process was led by the Provincial REDD+ Working Group (Pokja) which sought to assist the local Forest Management Unit to implement a forest rehabilitation program. coffee below). Result: The FPIC process was discontinued. (See the Summary of agreement in the paragraph below.) A platform was established to manage complaints and feedback. The program proposed to replant areas of degraded forest with species which were of value to the local community. forest management training. The negotiators representing Lembah Mukti village and the Forest Management Unit exchanged a Letter of Agreement (later sent to the Forest management Unit for approval) which set out 12 action points. some of which are described below. and the provision of An NGO.
FPIC for REDD+ in the Asia-Pacific region: Lessons learned. Central Sulawesi. and the need for sufficient information to be given to the community on REDD+. on a number of occasions in June 2012. including their concerns that adequate safeguards should be in place before FPIC occurs. Indonesia. including training on replanting and small-scale social forestry for the local community provide seedlings to the villagers of Lembah Mukti of nutmeg and durian. Pokja Pantau. in conjunction with the village. at the NGO’s request. Page | 16 . challenges and recommendations The Forest Management Unit agreed to: assist to resolve the boundary of Lembah Mukti village and its surrounding villages. sub-district and district administration help to clarify the status of private land owned by the village and the land owned by the FMU replant rubber and jabon. the members of Lembah Mukti village agreed to: permit the Forest Management Unit to carry out its replanting program for rubber and jabon immediately stop illegal logging activities establish regulations to prohibit poaching and address forest conservation and management plant trees on steep slopes to reduce natural disasters. March 2012. The NGO also presented their position on REDD+. Negotiators representing Lembah Mukti village and the Forest Management Unit exchange a Letter of Agreement following negotiations in Lembah Mukti Village. The purpose of the meetings was to exchange information and to clarify some misunderstandings about the role of the UN-REDD Programme (both global and country programmes) and about REDD+. In return. (Photo credit: UN-REDD Indonesia Programme) Summary of later meetings between NGO (Pokja Pantau) and UN-REDD Indonesia Programme Following the decision by Talaga village not to engage in consultations regarding REDD+. the UNREDD Indonesia Programme met with the NGO concerned. The UN-REDD Indonesia Programme has also facilitated multi-stakeholder meetings between the NGO and other stakeholders.
2. They will then be submitted to the Page | 17 . A community may refuse permission to engage in consultations.FPIC for REDD+ in the Asia-Pacific region: Lessons learned. where villagers were asked generally if they agreed to a program of proposed UN-REDD activities. Where a direct negotiation is involved. a grievance mechanism should be established which includes a mediator who can resolve complaints during and after the discussion period. as happened with Talaga village. FPIC guidelines are best tested in a location where there is a concrete proposal that requires community consent (in the case of Lembah Mukti village. written materials will be more suitable for people with higher levels of literacy. between the Forest Management Unit and the village). this decision must be respected. In Lembah Mukti village. it was the replanting programme proposed by the Forest Management Unit). challenges and recommendations Lessons learned from the FPIC trial Some of the lessons learned and identified by the UN-REDD Indonesia Program from the FPIC trial in Central Sulawesi include: The audience in the consultations should be segmented so that the most appropriate communication materials can be used for different members of the local community. the comic books explaining the forest rehabilitation proposal were particularly popular. This can be contrasted with the FPIC pilot carried out in Lam Dong Province. Using trained facilitators from the village’s own community can accelerate understanding because the process of building confidence between the facilitator and community is faster.2 below). and is planning two further trials in Central Sulawesi in June 2012. but a subsequent evaluation found that villagers did not really understand what was being proposed (see the explanation in section 3. The UN-REDD Indonesia Programme is currently undertaking a review of the first FPIC trial carried out in March 2012 in Central Sulawesi. Viet Nam (described in section 3. the draft FPIC Guidelines for Central Sulawesi will be revised and then released for further public consultation. Using a concrete proposal. Where this occurs. can be an easier way to explain a REDD+ project. It takes time and repetition to communicate a REDD+ proposal effectively. (in this case. such as treeplanting. which can be quite complex for a local community to understand. For example. below). Following these trials and their reviews.
This allowed the FPIC process to be reviewed and allowed lessons from earlier phases to be incorporated into revised procedures for later phases. within Lam Dong Province (Map 3). Viet Nam has high rate of internal migration with approximately 53 minority ethnic groups.2 Lam Dong Province.FPIC for REDD+ in the Asia-Pacific region: Lessons learned. challenges and recommendations government agency responsible for reviewing draft local regulations. Viet Nam was the first country to pioneer a REDD+ specific FPIC activity which focussed on district-level (rather than project-level) consultation.2 for more details). Page | 18 . selected from 35 candidates.15 The FPIC pilot took place in 2010 in two districts. REDD+ and FPIC techniques (see section 5. who all received training in climate change. of which only six are native to the districts. the others having moved from other parts of the country in the last generation. second phase = 31 villages. In Lam Dong Province. Viet Nam With the assistance of the UN REDD Programme. third phase = 25 villages). The FPIC activity itself was delivered by 24 FPIC facilitators (interlocutors).500 people in 78 villages. “Lessons Learned: Viet Nam UN-REDD Programme. there were 30 ethnic minority groups represented in the two pilot districts. after which they may be considered for formal adoption by the Provincial Government. and Lam Ha and Di Linh Districts Di Linh District 15 A useful summary of the lessons learned from Viet Nam’s early FPIC experience is set out in a forthcoming report: UN-REDD Programme. comprising approximately 16 million people. Phase 1” (forthcoming publication). Lam Ha and Di Linh. UN-REDD Programme. 2. This created particular challenges to ensure effective communication and inclusion in the FPIC process. and Nguyen Hang. The village FPIC meetings were divided into three phases (first phase = 22 villages. Map 3: Location of FPIC pilot districts in Lam Dong Province in Vietnam. Phased approach to FPIC The FPIC process was implemented over a period of five months between January and June 2010 and covered 5. prepared by Vickers.. B.
) who can develop a more detailed understanding of REDD+. including consultations on how to establish a grievance mechanism. et al (2010).Q. These people are now being trained by the FPIC facilitators on climate change and REDD+. However. Viet Nam. Evaluation and Verification of the Free. Evaluation and Verification of the Free.. The feedback given included: the need for more discussion time 16 In the independent evaluation of the FPIC trial. 37 and 38. Viet Nam.17 As a result of a final workshop to evaluate the FPIC process in Lam Dong Province. The question actually posed to villagers during the consultations was: “Do you agree with the proposed UN-REDD activities and want to participate in these activities?” with the relevant activities being indicated using a poster showing four field activities. The UN-REDD Programme has also held four village meetings to obtain further feedback on the FPIC pilot process. N. 78% of people said that they did not comprehend the UNREDD Programme.. etc.16 This appears to indicate some of the difficulties involved in clearly explaining the role of the UNREDD Programme in REDD+. with the recollection of many villagers being that they gave their consent to “forest protection”. local people. RECOFTC. RECOFTC. Follow up work since FPIC pilot The FPIC pilot in Viet Nam took place without national or sub-national FPIC guidelines and was based on guidance given by the UN-REDD Viet Nam Programme. N. 15.g. and to what was actually being proposed. an independent review of the process shows that there was some level of confusion among villagers as to what the UN-REDD Programme was. Prior and Informed Consent Process under the UN-REDD Programme in Lam Dong Province. the village head. the remaining 22% said that the program concerned forest protection or generating cleaner air: See Tan. 17 This is in line with a recommendation made by RECOFTC that Viet Nam develop a national FPIC guideline to guide future FPIC activities: See Tan. challenges and recommendations What was the outcome of the FPIC pilot? The communities concerned gave their consent to UN-REDD Viet Nam activities at the field level. et al (2010). as well as the difficulties in seeking consent for a program of activities rather than for a concrete project or planning proposal.FPIC for REDD+ in the Asia-Pacific region: Lessons learned. Prior and Informed Consent Process under the UN-REDD Programme in Lam Dong Province. pp. which in turn will form part of Viet Nam’s implementation of Phase 2 of REDD+.Q. it was recommended that teams of village facilitators (different to FPIC facilitators) be established who are from each village (e. Page | 19 . Viet Nam is now considering developing a national FPIC Guideline as part of its proposal to ‘roll out’ FPIC for REDD+ on a national scale. at p.
18 Lessons learned from the FPIC pilot in Lam Dong Province Lessons learned from the FPIC pilot in Lam Dong Province include:19 Adequate time needs to be allowed for awareness-raising: This issue was also raised many times during the FPIC Workshop in Bogor. 19 These lessons are set out in more detail in a Fact Sheet on Work on Free. Adequate time must be given to absorb information and for internal discussion: There must be sufficient separation between the early visits to introduction the idea of FPIC village facilitators talking to community members during the FPIC pilot in Lam Dong Province. Prior Informed Consent in Viet Nam. Prior and Informed Consent Process under the UN-REDD Programme in Lam Dong Province. challenges and recommendations a desire not to have too many meetings a preference for individuals to vote rather than decisions being made by representatives the need for the grievance mechanism to cover the performance of the facilitator. The concept of climate change and REDD+ is complex and difficult to grasp. Viet Nam. Local FPIC events can be very time-consuming and complex: Local communities may tend to be distrustful of new initiatives and need time to absorb information.. Viet Nam. Viet Nam. The whole FPIC process in Lam Dong was subject to an independent review by an NGO.Q. UN-REDD Programme. Evaluation and Verification of the Free. et al (2010). It is recommended that the same facilitator/interlocutor make at least 3 visits to a village before any decisions are made. Page | 20 .FPIC for REDD+ in the Asia-Pacific region: Lessons learned. (Photo credit: Nguyen Thi Thu Huyen) REDD+ to the community and the time when they are asked to make a decision. 18 See Tan. RECOFTC. N. 2010. particularly for local officials and communities with less education. RECOFTC.
FPIC for REDD+ in the Asia-Pacific region: Lessons learned. An independent audit of the FPIC pilot by an NGO. they should not be so far in advance of an activity that villagers lose interest in a proposal. guidance on the role of a facilitator in an FPIC process. while at the same time ensuring that the consultation remains “free” (without coercion). REDD+ and the UN-REDD activities to be carried out. et al (2010). A grievance and review mechanisms should be established at the outset: This was not done in the FPIC pilot in Lam Dong Province and was an omission. Prior and Informed Consent in the UN-REDD Programme in Viet Nam”.. Further information on the FPIC pilot in Viet Nam Documents from the FPIC pilot in Viet Nam are available on the UN-REDD Programme Viet Nam website and include: A full report by the UN-REDD Vietnam Programme on the FPIC pilot. RECOFTC. covering areas such 20 This was carried out by the Centre for People and Forests (RECOFTC). Page | 21 . which contains a more detailed description of the lessons learned. Evaluation and Verification of the Free. “Applying the Principle of Free. many villagers focus on short-term benefits and will ask “when will we see some benefits?” and “how much?”. Viet Nam.2.20 A Manual for Interlocutors to Conduct FPIC Village Consultation meetings (local facilitators). which was engaged by the UN-REDD Programme for this purpose. RECOFTC. N. which contains: detailed information on climate change. A compromise may be needed. challenges and recommendations Engagement with local authorities needs to be managed carefully and flexibly: There is a tension between engaging local authorities who may play a very visible role in negotiations. August 2010. See Tan. Although consultations need to be “prior”. but only relying on verbal agreements leaves open the possibility of future disagreements. which contains many useful observations and recommendations regarding the pilot. Managing expectations of villagers is important: Understandably. Local facilitators are essential for effective awareness-raising and discussion: See the discussion in section 5.Q. Documenting FPIC decisions can be challenging: Indigenous peoples and local communities may fear submitting written statements or signing documents. Prior and Informed Consent Process under the UN-REDD Programme in Lam Dong Province.
B. most UN-REDD Programme partner countries in the Asia-Pacific region are still in the early stages of Phase 1 of REDD+ in which they are developing their national REDD+ policies and strategies. challenges and recommendations as cultural information on the K’Ho people. For example. Box 2: Suggested steps for developing national level guidelines 1. Identify the relevant principles for the guidelines The country’s international law obligations Any obligations under national law 2. UN-REDD Programme. sub-national.FPIC for REDD+ in the Asia-Pacific region: Lessons learned. “Lessons Learned: Viet Nam UN-REDD Programme.1 Partner countries need more assistance to develop FPIC guidelines With the exception of Indonesia and Viet Nam. Phase 1” (forthcoming publication in 2012). and analyze the strengths and weaknesses of these processes Page | 22 . but are unsure of how to go about it and are looking for assistance. or in some cases. This need could be met in a number of ways. The UN-REDD Programme could create an FPIC Toolbox that countries seeking assistance could access containing FPIC materials. Examples of the communication materials used. and guidance on how to organize discussion groups. and flyers. guideline on FPIC. example of communication materials. 3 Developing national (or sub-national) FPIC guidelines: Lessons learned This section contains a number of observations and lessons learned which arose from the discussions and presentations given during the Second UN-REDD Programme Regional Workshop on Shared Learning for FPIC held in Bogor.1 below). in March 2012. such as posters. Indonesia. the Toolbox could contain examples of FPIC Guidelines from other countries. and Nguyen Hang. Identify any existing processes for consultation and consent concerning relevant stakeholders’ land and land use planning or natural resource development. A forthcoming review of Phase 1 of the UN-REDD Viet Nam Programme: UN-REDD Programme. countries are seeking to develop a national. deliver effective presentations and prepare reports of village consultation meetings. prepared by Vickers.. and a list of organizations and consultants with expertise in the area of FPIC (see the Recommendations in section 7. 3. leaflets. such as: A UN-REDD Programme template or format which more clearly sets out a process that a country could follow to develop FPIC guidelines (see the example in Box 2). As part of this REDD+ readiness process.
5. 3. by adopting the right to FPIC in legislation. under relevant forestry or timber extraction laws) that they can draw on to inform the development of their FPIC processes for REDD+. countries should review their existing consultation and participation frameworks as a preliminary step to preparing their national or sub-national FPIC guidelines for REDD+. and consider how the guidelines could be integrated into a broader regulatory scheme for REDD+. 3.1) Independently evaluate the field test Amend the draft FPIC guidelines.2). are landowner processes for consent already in 21 This observation was also made in a recent review of the UN-REDD Viet Nam Programme: UN-REDD Programme.. B. and Nguyen Hang. 7. Ensure that there is a process of public consultation and validation by stakeholders on the guidelines.1). Field test draft FPIC guidelines at a pilot site This should preferably be done where the is a concrete proposal which requires consent from the local community (see the case study on Central Sulawesi in section 4. prepared by Vickers. This step is important in order to analyze the strengths and weaknesses of any existing processes (e. Undertake capacity building of working group members on FPIC. first review existing consultation processes One of the problems of using the new and unfamiliar term of “FPIC” is that people sometimes assume that FPIC is a completely new concept. if necessary Undertake a validation process with all stakeholders Consider how the FPIC guidelines could be formalized For example. “Lessons Learned: Viet Nam UN-REDD Programme. such as local or national forestry authorities. and that they may already have existing requirements for consultation and consent in relation to natural resource development in their country (e. 4. Page | 23 . see section 4. are they being properly followed? Where is the existing system breaking down? Are these systems effective in protecting the rights of indigenous peoples and other rights-holders?) Develop first draft of FPIC guidelines Consider establishing a multi-stakeholder working group to do this. if necessary (this was a recommendation arising from the Central Sulawesi field test. challenges and recommendations For example. as an example of good practice. UN-REDD Programme.FPIC for REDD+ in the Asia-Pacific region: Lessons learned.21 For example. 6.g.2 When preparing national FPIC guidelines. Related to this is the observation that. Phase 1” (forthcoming publication in 2012).g. some participants in the FPIC Workshop in Bogor did not initially understand that FPIC is simply another form of consultation and participation (but set to a higher standard: see section 1. Include any actors which are likely to be involved in implementing the guidelines.
22 The Philippines has had many years of experience with FPIC. Box 3 contains an example from the Philippines where this type of analysis is has been done. The legal right to FPIC in the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act was supplemented by the FPIC Guidelines of 2006 which set out a detailed process for how the FPIC process must be undertaken. NonTimber Forest Products Exchange Programme. 19 – 20 April 2012. and to assess how they might be improved to ensure the protection of indigenous peoples’ and local communities’ right to FPIC in REDD+.24 22 Atty. given by Ms Robeliza Halip. Page | 24 . to claims of outright corruption. representing approximately 110 ethno-linguistic groups. The policy reviews were triggered in response to reports concerning alleged irregularities in the implementation of the 2006 FPIC Guidelines and reported violations. challenges and recommendations place? Are they working well or are they being undermined or subverted in some way?). Government agencies cannot issue any concession. ICCs/IPs have the right to give or withhold their FPIC where their ancestral domains are concerned. 23 This Policy Study is being funded by GIZ in partnership with the Non-Timber Forest Products . Under the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act 1997. possible collusion with proponents. Researcher. Box 3: Case study – Policy reviews of existing FPIC processes in the Philippines There are about 13 million people in the Indigenous Cultural Communities (ICCs) and Indigenous Peoples (IPs) in the Philippines. the agency responsible for the implementation of the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act. National Commission of Indigenous Peoples. Ancestral Domains Office. Jonathan Adaci. 24 Source: Presentation on ‘FPIC: The Philippine Experience”. This review led to the drafting of the Revised FPIC Guideline of 2012 that took into consideration the recommendations from the reviews conducted by the National Cultural Communities Committee of the 15th Congress and the NGO-led Policy Study. in response to a House Resolution 887 of 2011. lease or licence over an ancestral domain area without obtaining the FPIC of the relevant ICC/IP (s. and will constitute a sufficient safeguard for. 2. indigenous peoples’ rights under a national REDD+. The results of the Policy Study were not available at the time of writing (May 2012). 59).FPIC for REDD+ in the Asia-Pacific region: Lessons learned.23 3. Director. A government-led review. An NGO-led Policy Study on the Assessment of FPIC Implementation.Exchange Program (an NGO) and the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples. mainly in the context of natural resource project-based development. ranging from the creation of fictitious tribal associations. This Study is looking specifically at whether the 2006 FPIC Guidelines are suitable for. An internal government-led review initiated by the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP). presentation to FPIC Workshop in Bogor on 19 – 20 April 2012. three separate policy reviews were undertaken into the adequacy of the 2006 FPIC Guidelines: 1. This review looked into reports from affected Indigenous communities of irregularities in the implementation of the 2006 FPIC Guidelines and provided policy recommendations for the review of the Guidelines. being conducted by the National Cultural Communities Committee of the 15th Congress. In 2011/2012. to the FPIC Workshop in Bogor.
In order to explore this issue. which expressly state that they apply to “carbon trading and related activities” (s 19(i)). Some of the suggestions are set out in Table 2 below: Page | 25 . challenges and recommendations The 2006 FPIC Guideline has now been repealed and replaced by “Revised Guidelines on Free and Prior Informed Consent (FPIC) and Related Processes of 2012” (NCIP Administrative Order No. 3.FPIC for REDD+ in the Asia-Pacific region: Lessons learned. a group exercise was held which discussed the question of “whether national FPIC guidelines are always necessary?” participants was “yes”. The good practice point that this process raises for FPIC is that that the development of national FPIC guidelines for REDD+ should be preceded by a thorough review of existing consultation and consent processes so that any shortcomings or weaknesses can be addressed in the design of new FPIC processes for REDD+. participants in the FPIC Workshop in Bogor were asked to identify the ways they have explained the concepts of climate change and REDD+ when working with low literacy communities. 3. The main points from this discussion were that: National FPIC guidelines are necessary in order to standardize the principles and procedures for FPIC throughout the country. However. subject to some qualifications. confidence.1 Using a range of approaches can help communicate REDD+ to low literacy communities Communicating a complex concept such as REDD+ can be difficult where local communities with low literacy are involved. 4.3 Countries appear keen to formalize national-level FPIC guidelines During the FPIC Workshop in Bogor. Series of 2012). Credible FPIC guidelines would also increase donor The overwhelming response from 4 Implementing FPIC: Lessons learned The objective of this section is to identify some of the practical lessons learned of ‘how to do FPIC’ based on the case studies and material presented at the FPIC Workshop in Bogor. they should also be broad enough to allow for flexibility at the local level. if national or subnational FPIC requirements are made to be legally binding. otherwise people will not follow them. An important purpose of national FPIC guidelines is to minimize conflict on the right and wrong forms of FPIC. There should be some sort of legal or official recognition of national FPIC guidelines by the government concerned.
explaining REDD+ in the context of resource security and food security. Examples of different approaches included: approaching religious leaders to talk about REDD+ and climate change. Don’t use the term ‘FPIC’. REDD+ ‘road shows’ where government representatives and NGOs debate climate change and REDD+ It is suggested that communication materials on FPIC and practical suggestions such as these could be placed in the ‘FPIC Toolbox’. For example.1. if the community already has experience of community forestry. engaging first with village leaders and then asking them to explain new concepts to their own communities. and linking these to climate change and REDD+. Pointing out familiarities with existing government forestry programs to demonstrate that REDD+ is not completely new. which is recommended below in Section 7. and regular radio programs. It was agreed that it is best to use a range of materials and approaches. but are likely to be confusing if used in tropical countries. REDD+ should be explained using language which is relevant to the livelihoods of the people concerned. puppet shows. and carbon. Asking participants to identify any changes in the local climate that they have noticed. Page | 26 . TV programs. describing the melting of glaciers melting may be relevant in Nepal. challenges and recommendations Table 2: Approaches to explaining climate change and REDD+ to low literacy communities Approaches that DO work Approaches that DON’T work It is not always useful to describe REDD+ in terms of climate change.FPIC for REDD+ in the Asia-Pacific region: Lessons learned. Do not use examples of climate change impacts that are not relevant to the region. animation. drama. for example. greenhouse gas emissions. This means. cartoons. as it only confuses people. films. Instead. use familiar terms such as consultation and participation. Explaining REDD+ as another version of community forestry. if possible. Examples of the different media that participants had used included: role playing.
facilitators were chosen directly from each of the villages as well as from surrounding villages. In the FPIC trial in Central Sulawesi.FPIC for REDD+ in the Asia-Pacific region: Lessons learned. (Photo credit: Nguyen Thi Thu Huyen) 4. 24 male and female FPIC interlocutors (facilitators) were selected and trained.1) used facilitators to communicate with local communities. Both the Viet Nam FPIC pilot (section 3.2 Selecting and training suitable facilitators is of critical importance Given that REDD+ activities may often take place in remote areas where there may be high levels of illiteracy and/or little understanding of climate change or REDD+.2) and the pilot in Central Sulawesi (section 3. REDD+ and FPIC. it will generally be necessary to use intermediaries (also called “facilitators” or “interlocutors”) to bridge the communication gap. They were drawn from a range of different ethnic Page | 27 . They were then trained in climate change. Where this occurs. facilitators should also receive specific training in mediation skills. challenges and recommendations Ethnic FPIC facilitator explaining climate change and REDD+ to women during FPIC pilot in Lam Dong Province. The facilitators in Central Sulawesi played an important role in providing additional information on climate change. REDD+ and forest management which was additional to the information provided by the Forest Management Unit. the Forest Management Unit). before returning to their own villages to communicate this information. A review of the FPIC trial in Central Sulawesi showed that facilitators may also be required to play an intermediary (or mediation) role to facilitate negotiations between the local community and the forest authority (in this case. Viet Nam. In the UN-REDD Programme’s FPIC pilot in Viet Nam. 2010.
Training facilitators takes time and money. ethnicity.FPIC for REDD+ in the Asia-Pacific region: Lessons learned. and this will normally mean that it is necessary to recruit facilitators from the local area who can communicate without the need for translation. enthusiastic and able to work both independently and in a team.25 Lessons learned from these two early experiences with facilitators include: The selection and training of suitable FPIC facilitators is of critical to the success of the FPIC process. FPIC Facilitator addressing participants during the FPIC pilot in Lembah Mukti Village. Page | 28 . but it is not always easy to get the right candidates. as they are unlikely to be familiar with the issues to start with. Consideration should be given to language skills. as well as training in facilitation and FPIC skills. Indonesia. The eligibility criteria included: university or college graduate. Viet Nam. 2010. challenges and recommendations backgrounds to ensure they could communicate with communities in their local language. Evaluation and Verification of FPIC Process under the UN-REDD Programme in Lam Dong Province. March 2012. (Photo credit: UN-REDD Indonesia Programme) 25 RECOFTC. Facilitators will often have very low capacity initially. p. Central Sulawesi. ability to communicate in a local language. five years’ experience in participatory communication. Communication in a person’s first language is essential. Establishing a systematic way to train and maintain a team of experienced FPIC facilitators may help to reduce the cost of doing FPIC over the long term. and not being currently employed as a State official. experience in consultation processes. 26. gender. Most were lecturers from the local university or worked for a local protected area. Communicating complex issues associated with REDD+ is even more difficult when speaking a person’s second language. In Viet Nam it was noted that training on both the substance of climate change and REDD+ issues must take place. age profile (some elders prefer to speak to older facilitators). and knowledge of REDD+.
documenting sensitive issues can be difficult. 2010. 27 For example. (Photo credit: UN-REDD Viet Nam Programme) 26 See Tan.3 It is important to document the whole FPIC process The process of documenting FPIC was also the subject of much discussion during the FPIC Workshop in Bogor. questions and concerns raised. regardless of whether or not they participated in the decision. and what it is permissible to document. Evaluation and Verification of the Free. including ideas. Page | 29 . et al (2010). at p.. Viet Nam. N. in part. Participants consider REDD+ materials during FPIC trial in Lam Dong Province.4 Establishing effective grievance mechanisms is important Although this point has been raised in UN-REDD Programme publications before. see the UN-REDD draft FPIC Guidelines (section 5) which address the need for UN-REDD partner countries to establish a grievance and accountability mechanism.27 it is worth highlighting two additional points. by whether the FPIC process is based on a planning approach to REDD+ (in which case it could be institutionalized at the relevant local. 35. 4.FPIC for REDD+ in the Asia-Pacific region: Lessons learned. Viet Nam. and the notes were not shared with villages after the meetings. RECOFTC. This point was also raised by representatives from Viet Nam. namely: That it is important to establish effective grievance mechanisms at the appropriate level.26 But. so that it is possible to review the whole process in the event that things go wrong and a grievance arises.Q. Workshop participants made the following useful observations regarding documentation: It is important to document the whole FPIC process. challenges and recommendations 4. The RECOFTC assessment of the FPIC pilot in Lam Dong province noted that details notes of meetings were not taken and only ‘the most important/interesting things’ were noted. yet all community members should be informed of the outcome. Prior and Informed Consent Process under the UN-REDD Programme in Lam Dong Province. Not all people in the community might have participated in the consultation. 39. The community should be asked what is sensitive and what is not. The appropriate level will be determined. The importance of reverting back to the local community to inform them of the outcome of the FPIC consultation was emphasized.
provincial or national government level).FPIC for REDD+ in the Asia-Pacific region: Lessons learned. including a grievance mechanism. it was found that specific mediation skills. or whether FPIC is taking place for a REDD+ project. would have assisted the negotiation process between the Forest Management Unit and the local community. in which case the mechanism should be project-specific. For example. challenges and recommendations district. in the recent FPIC trial in Central Sulawesi. Page | 30 . where negotiations were led by the local Forest Management Unit. Where a project-based proposal is involved. the grievance mechanism selected should also be able to respond to the particular dynamics of each negotiation.
5. REDD+ strategies may also include wide-ranging changes to national level legislation and policy.FPIC for REDD+ in the Asia-Pacific region: Lessons learned. this should identify where improvements are required. each country’s approach to FPIC should identify appropriate structures and processes for applying FPIC at the broader policy and administrative levels. For example.g. such as for logging. Article 19 of UNDRIP makes it clear that such activities must be subject to FPIC (see Box 5). while the Revised Guidelines require project-based ‘carbon trading activities’ to undertake a full FPIC process. For example.2 (e. for example.g. 40). this could be done by ensuring that indigenous people and local communities are represented on multi- Page | 31 . The development of an effective model for FPIC in the context of REDD+ offers each a country an opportunity to improve their consultation processes for other natural resource developments. mining and petroleum development. as is suggested in section 4. This allows matters of national importance to be addressed expeditiously. Where a country has undertaken a thorough policy review of its existing consultation and consent mechanisms. see the example from the Philippines in Box 4 below).2 How to roll out FPIC for REDD+ programmes and policies? One of the main challenges for applying FPIC is how to manage the scope and scale of REDD+. For example. the scope of REDD+ strategies is potentially very broad. or improving forest law enforcement and governance. strengthening community-based approaches to forest management. Box 4: Approach to FPIC in the Philippines for programmes and policies The Revised 2012 FPIC Guidelines in the Philippines (see Box 3) specify a different FPIC process for projects and programs proposed by the National Commission for Indigenous People compared to the FPIC process specified for projects. PNG). While some countries are focussing on project-level activities (e. by reforming the process for land titling. they allow a shorter consultation process (called a ‘validation process’) to be used to determine whether a proposed policy or program is consistent with the development priorities of the local community (s. With this scope in mind.1 Improving FPIC processes throughout the broader policy framework Developing an improved FPIC process for REDD+ can create an opportunity for countries to improve their consultation processes throughout the country’s broader policy framework for indigenous peoples and local communities. challenges and recommendations 5 Opportunities and challenges 5.
The scale of REDD+ is also a challenge for FPIC. they should consider the implications of these two approaches for their FPIC guidelines and processes (see Table 3 below). When countries are designing their national approach to REDD+.g. While some UN-REDD partner countries are envisaging adopting a planning-based approach to REDD+ (e. Papua New Guinea).’ ‘planning-based approach’). rather than by supporting individual projects (a ‘project-based approach’).FPIC for REDD+ in the Asia-Pacific region: Lessons learned. or by specifying a shorter FPIC process for programmes and policies (e.g. planning-based approach to REDD+ Project-based approach FPIC process will be linked to the FPIC process project development cycle Planning-based approach FPIC process should be incorporated into the land-use planning process Four actors: Parties involved in FPIC process government local communities FPIC implementer project proponent Three actors: government local communities the FPIC implementer Page | 32 .g. Table 3: Implications for FPIC of project-based v.2). some appear to be considering a project-based approach to REDD+ (e. This will arise where REDD+ Box 5: Article 19 of UNDRIP Article 19 provides that: ‘States shall consult and cooperate in good faith with the indigenous peoples concerned through their own representative institutions in order to obtain their free. prior and informed consent strategies will be implemented through changes to land-use planning policies and programmes which will affect the whole of the forest estate in a district or province (a before adopting and implementing legislative or administrative measures that may affect them. Viet Nam: see section 3. challenges and recommendations stakeholder consultation groups. see the example from the Philippines in Box 5).
Page | 33 . which can be used again in later community consultations.FPIC for REDD+ in the Asia-Pacific region: Lessons learned. possibly across or within a district or province. and also because the cost of doing FPIC will differ significantly from country to country. Established specifically for the Grievance mechanism project Institutionalized at a district or provincial administrative level 5. although these may be offset by greater emission reductions. given that they may end up costing a significant amount of money depending on the FPIC model that is adopted.3 How much does FPIC cost. cost US$115. This is partly because there are too few examples to draw on at present. etc.000. This Level of FPIC may result in higher costs because of the larger scale of implementation. 28 It is also not clear how countries are going to fund their FPIC programmes. the size of the country. 6 Recommendations This section makes recommendations for further activities which could assist UN-REDD partner countries in developing and implementing their FPIC processes. challenges and recommendations Project-based approach Consultations will take place at a project level Planning-based approach Consultations will take place on a very broad scale. and who will pay for it? How much does it cost to do FPIC? While this question was asked a few occasions during the workshop there were no definitive answers. which covered 78 villages and took place over a 6 month period. 28 By way of example. Countries have also expressed concern that FPIC activities will often need to take place with remote communities. Some of these costs were fixed costs used for the preparation of communication materials. the REDD+ FPIC pilot work in Viet Nam. with travel costs being high.
The Toolbox would be hosted on the UN-REDD Programme website and could contain material such as: Information for countries on how to develop national (or sub-national) FPIC guidelines o This could contain: a detailed description of the steps involved in developing FPIC guidelines (see section 4. or did individuals vote. (Photo credit: UN-REDD Viet Nam) examples of how decisions on consent were made within various FPIC pilots (e. both Viet Nam and Central Sulawesi have already produced Page | 34 . challenges and recommendations 6. did representatives decide on behalf of the community.g. Participant in FPIC pilot in Lam Dong Province.1 Develop an ‘FPIC toolbox’ Partner countries have expressed a need to more easily access information to help them with developing and implementing FPIC processes. Materials to assist countries to implement FPIC: o A list of case studies from countries that have already piloted FPIC processes. It is therefore proposed that the UN-REDD Programme should develop an ‘FPIC Toolbox’ which partner countries could access as a central information hub on FPIC. and a collection of lessons learned from these other countries who have developed national or subnational FPIC guidelines (e. Viet Nam.g. 2010.g. the Philippines). Central Sulawesi. copies of FPIC Guidelines from other countries (e. Indonesia).1). manuals for facilitators (e. as occurred in the Viet Nam FPIC pilot?) Information for facilitators: o This could contain information on how facilitators were chosen and trained.FPIC for REDD+ in the Asia-Pacific region: Lessons learned.g.
Prior and Informed Consent into Practice: A Training Manual. the materials used in the FPIC pilot in Viet Nam are available on the UN-REDD Programme Viet Nam website.FPIC for REDD+ in the Asia-Pacific region: Lessons learned. et al. etc. A list of non-government organizations and other experts who have experience with FPIC processes and can provide assistance to countries. challenges and recommendations manuals for facilitators). Evaluation and verification methodologies and toolkits. 6.2 Targeted assistance for countries to develop FPIC processes 29 See Edwards. RECOFTC (2012). and would help countries to identify the likely cost of doing FPIC. o The template could identify the typical costs of implementing FPIC. Page | 35 . RECOFTC has produced an FPIC Evaluation and Verification Toolkit for UN-REDD Programme Country Programmes (June 2010). A budget template to assist countries to prepare budgets for FPIC activities. preparing communication materials. such as the manual produced recently by RECOFTC. o For example. Putting Free. such as selecting and training facilitators.29 Examples of communication materials on climate change and REDD+ o For example. (2012). manuals for trainers.
3.. see Sohn.FPIC for REDD+ in the Asia-Pacific region: Lessons learned. based on consultations and presentations during the FPIC Workshop in Bogor. 30 Based on four case studies31 in which FPIC played a critical role in the success or failure (and in some cases. The risks of failing to achieve community consent are not borne exclusively by the project sponsor.C. abandonment) of these projects. Other stakeholder. such as shareholders. and host governments can also have their interests adversely affected by conflicts that may result from the failure to achieve community support of a project. and a water-treatment plant in Thailand. Washington. Development Without Conflict: The Business Case for Community Consent. The UN-REDD Programme should consider how this support could be made available. 31 These were the building of an industrial-scale gas-line in the Philippines. As a result. World Resources Institute. 30 For an example of an existing publication along these lines. p. but produced in the context of project-based development. (ed. two gold mines (Argentina and Peru).). Addressing issues of community concern before the project begins is likely to be more successful and costeffective than responding to community opposition later on. 2007. One question raised was: “What is the cost of doing FPIC?” with the converse question being: “What is the cost of NOT doing FPIC?” In the context of large-scale public and private development projects. conclusions to support its argument that it is in the financial interest of project sponsors and their financial backers to Source: Sohn. Page | 36 . However. The business risks of going forward with a large-scale project in a community without its acceptance can threaten commercial or financial viability of the project Community opposition can arise from impacts that are generated at any stage in the project cycle.) (2007). the report reached a number of Box 6: Conclusions reached in WRI Report (2007) on why FPIC makes good business sense When businesses get it right. World Resources Institute.. Development Without Conflict: The Business Case for Community Consent. 6. financiers. FPIC must be ongoing. the World Resources Institute explored this issue in its 2007 report titled: “Development Without Conflict: The Business Case for Community Consent”.3 Developing the business case for FPIC in REDD+ Two related issues which arose periodically during the FPIC Workshop in Bogor related to the cost of FPIC. challenges and recommendations A review of the National Programme Documents and R-PPs of the UN-REDD Programme partner countries in the Asia-Pacific region shows that there are only a small number of countries that have specifically included FPIC activities in their NPDs/R-PPs. Mere engagement or consultation may not be sufficient to fully address these risks. J. which itself may suffer reputational harm. J. achieving consent can benefit both the community and the project. D. and to develop practical approaches to implementing FPIC. (ed. Consultations that do not resolve a community’s reasons for opposition or achieve consent will provide little assurance against potentially costly and disruptive conflict. partner countries are clearly expressing an interest in accessing targeted assistance to both develop national (or sub-national) FPIC guidelines.
where possible. An effective FPIC process can therefore play an important role in helping countries to reduce the risk of release of sequestered forest carbon because of the actions of local communities who do not support. the REDD+ activity. both the risks and benefits of undertaking FPIC for REDD+ activities. and attempts to quantify. challenges and recommendations ensure that local communities should have the right to give or withhold their consent (see the conclusions listed in Box X). Although developed in a project-specific context. para. It is possible that countries will be required to insure against this risk in some way under a future UNFCCC REDD+ regime. The release may be either intentional (e. illegal logging) or unintentional (e. wildfire). It is recommended that further work be done to develop the business case for FPIC which clearly articulates. many of these observations and lessons are relevant to REDD+.g. 32 The need to address the risk of reversals is a requirement under the Cancun Agreements: Appendix I. or who may seek to actively undermine. also referred to as ‘loss of permanence’. In the context of REDD+. happen where a country receives benefits or incentives for avoided forest carbon emissions or increases in carbon removals and the carbon is subsequently released into the atmosphere.FPIC for REDD+ in the Asia-Pacific region: Lessons learned. the need to address the risk of reversals is a particular risk which should be considered when quantifying the risk of not doing FPIC.32 Reversals.g. 2(f). Page | 37 .
Prior. P. held in Bogor.. Report of the Expert Workshop on the UN-REDD Programme draft Guidelines on Free. presentations and evaluation). Free. Prior and Informed Consent into Practice: A Training Manual. Hill. FPIC and UN-REDD: Legal and Practical Considerations. Guidelines for Implementation of Free Prior Informed Consent (FPIC) in UNREDD Project in Central Sulawesi (draft 27 – 29 December 2011) General information on FPIC Anderson. Proceedings of the Second UN-REDD Programme Regional Workshop on FPIC Shared Learning. M. Page | 38 . (2010). Geneva. draft for comment – December 2011 UN-REDD Programme. et al. National and sub-national FPIC Guidelines Revised Guidelines on Free and Prior Informed Consent (FPIC) and Related Processes of 2012” (NCIP Administrative Order No. RECOFTC (2012). Series of 2012). Oxfam Australia. S. challenges and recommendations Useful FPIC resources UN-REDD Programme FPIC Guidelines UN-REDD Programme Guidelines on Free. CIEL (2010). Lillywhite. and Informed Consent in REDD+: Principles and Approaches for Policy and Project Development..FPIC for REDD+ in the Asia-Pacific region: Lessons learned. (2012).. UN-REDD Viet Nam Programme. Indonesia. FPIC training manuals Edwards. UN-REDD Indonesia.. prepared for the UN-REDD Programme by the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL). and Simon. Putting Free. Prior and Informed Consent. Guide to Free Prior and Informed Consent. (relates to all project-based development). C. Manuals for facilitators Manual for Interlocutors to Conduct FPIC Village Consultation Meetings. published by RECOFTC and GIZ. 10 – 11 February 2012. from 19 – 20 April 2012 (agenda. 3. (2011). Philippines. Prior and Informed Consent.
D. prepared by Vickers. L. 2007. Evaluation and Verification of the Free. Indian Law Resource Center. N. UN-REDD Programme. G. and Gordon... T.T. L.C. and K’Tip. “Lessons Learned: Viet Nam UN-REDD Programme. challenges and recommendations Other references Crippa. B. Viet Nam. Truong.. (2012).C. Page | 39 . J.A. International Law Principles for REDD+: The Rights of Indigenous Peoples and the Legal Obligations of REDD+ Actors. N. Van. Working Paper. Sohn. (ed.. D. Phase 1” (forthcoming publication in 2012). Washington. Prior and Informed Consent Process under the UN-REDD Programme in Lam Dong Province.H.Q. Development without conflict: The Business Case for Community Consent. Washington.. UN-REDD Programme. (2010). and Nguyen Hang.. Tan.). World Resources Institute.FPIC for REDD+ in the Asia-Pacific region: Lessons learned. RECOFTC.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue listening from where you left off, or restart the preview.